Open letter: Private workshop on the “necessity” of monkey research does not represent broad public interests or the scientific community-fake id maker online

This weekend there will be science marches around the globe. Scientists and science proponents will gather to provide a visible sign of support for work that benefits the public, the environment, and the world in innumerable ways. The march has been highly publicized – rightfully so, because it serves as a reminder that scientific research and scientists can be threatened in a variety of ways that can have consequences with breadth and depth that should be of concern for society as a whole.

This week there will also be another event that has potential for consequences for science and public health. But it is neither a public event, nor one that has been publicized.

The private event is a workshop titled, “The necessity of the use of non-human primate models in research.” The workshop is supported by Johns Hopkins University and is organized by Prof. Jeff Kahn in the Berman Institute for Bioethics, with participants that include philosophers, bioethicists, a leader of the Humane Society of the US, veterinarians, and scientists– all by invitation only (see roster in workshop agenda below). Its stated goals and approach are: “To help address the issues of the use of NHPs in research, we are convening this working group to examine the science, ethics, and policy aspects of the use of NHPs in biomedical and behavioral research and testing, with the goal of identifying consensus findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The focus of the working group will be to evaluate the current and potential future uses of NHP models, drawing on the approach used in the 2011 IOM Report “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity” (IOM, 2011).

The group lists as their objective: “The product(s) of the working group process will be a report or series of reports based on the working group’s expert analysis, which will include principles and criteria for assessing the necessity of the use of NHPs in research.” (emphasis added)

Detail is here:

In other words, the working group, privately convened, is intent on replicating the 2011 IOM process applied to chimpanzees in order to produce their own principles and criteria for assessing nonhuman primate research broadly. This process should cause grave concern for scientists and for the public who rely on research conducted with nonhuman primates.

The scientific community has publicly weighed in on the necessity of primate research. Most recently, the National Institutes of Health convened a working group to consider nonhuman primate research and concluded “that the oversight framework for the use of non-human primates in research is robust and has provided sufficient protections to date.” Similarly, a letter from over 400 scientists, including Nobel Laureates, rejected a claim from notable public figures that neuroscience research with non-human primates is no longer useful. The hundreds of scientists argued that, “primate research was still critical for developing treatments for dementia and other debilitating illnesses.” ()

Consideration of the ethical justification for research and of the care for animals in research occurs at many levels and in public space. Public health, including the interests of patients and of society as a whole, is integral to those decisions. The scientific community provides expert knowledge about what types of studies are needed for progress in the basic understanding of biology, brain, behavior, and disease and also about how to move forward with new prevention, intervention, and treatment to address health challenges. Funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, are charged by the public to make decisions about science and do so through a process that involves multiple layers of expert review. Federal agencies also oversee research and standards of care for humans and animals involved in studies and provide opportunities for the public to comment on standards and to benefit from decisions.

The private workshop has the appearance of being secretive while also directly opposing the processes in place for responsible public decision-making. As such, it appears to be yet another attempt to influence decisions about science without adequately representing either public interests or the breadth and depth of expertise in the scientific community. Without adequate scientific representation the workshop conclusions cannot be taken as adequately representative of the current state of scientific knowledge. Without adequate representation of the public agencies that safeguard societal interests in scientific and medical progress the workshop conclusions cannot be taken as representative of fact-informed, balanced consideration of research.

Finally, without consideration informed by understanding the fundamental characteristics of the scientific process, the workshop conclusions will only reflect an agenda biased to reach a particular conclusion. As it is framed, it appears that the question of “necessity” is one that cannot account well for the role of basic research, of uncertainty, and of the difference between decisions based in a particular set of values and decisions about the best scientific course of action to answer questions and advance understanding of human and animal health.

For all of these reasons, the reports emanating from this private workshop must be critically examined with healthy skepticism, rather than taken as an authoritative account. We remain concerned that the products of a workshop will serve to advance an agenda that is harmful to public interests in scientific research.

[Note: If you would like to sign on to this letter please add your name to the comments].

Linda C. Cork, D.V.M, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University (Senior member of the National Academy of Medicine; Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists)

Robert Desimone, Ph.D., Director, McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience

Patrice A. Frost, D.V.M, President of, and signing on behalf of, the Association of Primate Veterinarians

Michael E. Goldberg, MD, David Mahoney Professor of Brain and Behavior in the Departments of Neuroscience, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Ophthalmology
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Senior Attending Neurologist, New York Presbyterian Hospital. (Past chair, Society for Neuroscience Committee on Animal Research)

Katalin M. Gothard, MD, PhD, Professor of Physiology, The University of Arizona

James Rowlett, PhD, University of Mississippi Medical Center (Chair, American Psychological Association Committee on Animal Research Ethics)

Mar Sanchez, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine; Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University (Chair, Society for Neuroscience Committee on Animal Research)

On the other hand, Speaking of Research cheered for last year’s NIH symposium that was supposed to be about the ethics of primate research but which didn’t include any experts on primate cognition or primates’ natural behavior, and which didn’t have any presentations from ethicists. So you can’t really claim the moral high ground here on calling for a truly open and informed debate on this topic. This workshop looks like a response necessitated by the inadequate efforts by the NIH.

While the focus of NIH working group may not have included a full discussion on the basic concept of whether primates or any animals should be used in research regardless of the cost-benefit, the organizers solicited open input from the scientific community on who should be invited to attend to listen and or speak. That certainly does not seem to be the case here.

Almost every major medical advance during the last century has been made possible through research in animals. Because of their close anatomical, physiological and behavioral similarity to humans, nonhuman primates provide an indispensable translational bridge between basic laboratory studies and human clinical applications. Society is currently facing enormous medical challenges in infectious diseases and brain disorders that include AIDS, cancer, substance abuse, neuropsychiatric illnesses, and neurodegenerative diseases for which nonhuman primates provide the best models and the best hope for improved treatment.
Roger D. Spealman, PhD, Professor, Harvard Medical School

Carefully and humanely conducted research involving human and nonhuman primates as research subjects is beneficial to all primates, and is critical to responsible health care and conservation. Joseph M. Erwin, PhD, Independent Consultant and Research Professor, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

It is absurd to discuss the “necessity” of research and the knowledge it gains us. Let’s put in the ethical balance the consequences of abandoning primate research. How ethical is to stand by human suffering knowing full well that research can give us the knowledge to intervene in meaningful ways?

Choice of dinner venue by the organizers () suggests they have no qualms about the use of animals for food. I can imagine them discussing how to ban research with primates over some “Carpaccio di Manzo”. Perhaps they should have started with a private workshop on the ethics of Hamburger instead? So much for their ethical choices.

Travis, we agree with your stance that the panel should be as balanced as possible. It’s important to note, however, so that anyone reading these comments is aware – the quote you pulled is from a paper included in the Briefing Book, it is not a quote from the organizers in the Briefing Book about the workshop itself.

Nonhuman primate research is fundamental to our understanding of immunology, physiology and medicine, and it will provide our next generation of small and large molecule drugs, and vaccines.
Joe H. Simmons, MS, DVM, PhD, DACLAM
Professor of Comparative Medicine

A secret workshop on the “necessity” of research involving non-human primates will unfold over the next few days. This workshop involves very capable scientists, but the agenda fails to adequately address the range of scientific, ethical and social factors that plan into decision-making on this topic. It is a poorly conceived attempt to address a topic of fundamental public concern without adequate transparency or input.

The use of nonhuman primates is justified each and every day in protocol approvals, grant reviews, manuscript acceptances and, yes, media storms over the latest miracle prosthetic limb controlled by neuronal activity. Such a covert, limited-participant workshop can only have been convened to try to do an end run around the actual evidence. Consider me a co-signer.
Michael A Taffe, PhD